CRP/177/2026 of Sri. Syed Akbar Ali Vs Sri. Chilumula Shankar Reddy on 13 February 2026

ORAL ORDER:

Heard Mr.K.Mohan, learned counser for the petitioner and Mr' M'Damodar Reddy, Iearned counsel for the respondent. 2' This civil Revision petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Aricre 227 of the constitution of India, assailing the Docket order dat'ed I 0- l r -202s in I.A.No. r 060 of 2024 in o.S.No .2202 of 2022 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior civ, Judge_cum_ v Additic'nal Judicial Magistrate of the Firsr crass, Medchar _ Malkajgiri District, Uppal at L.B.Nagar. q tr 'l

3. Petitioner is the plaintiff and he has filed O.S.No.2202 of 2022 against the respondent/defendant s.eeking declaration and also for injunction in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., open land of plot bearing No.310 in Sy.No.l/aa, admeasuring 144 square yards (out of total extent of land admeasuring Acs.4.00 guntas), situated at Gulam Ali Guda Village, Medipally Gram Panchayat, Ghatkesar Mandal, Rangareddy District.

4. Along with the said suit, he has also filed an Interlocutory Application seeking interim injunction. There is no interim injunction. Respondent/defendant has already filed counter. Pleadings are complete in the said lnterlocutory Application.

5. Petitioner has also fited an Interlocutory Application in the said suit vide I.A.No.97l of 2025 under Order Vll Rule l4(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking to grant leave to receive the Judgment and Decree dated 20.09.2012 in O.S.No.243 of 2009 passed by the learned ll Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District. The said application was allowed on 10.I1.2025.

i J

6. During the pendency of the said lnterlocutory Application and O.li.No.2202 of 2022 and when the matter was posted for cross-el:amination of PW.1, respondent/defendant has filed I.A.No.1060 of 2024 under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to get the survey of suit ptot to know as to whether the suit plot is part and parcel of Sy.No.1 as claimed by the plaintiff or Sy.No.2 as claimed. by the defendant.

7. tt is the specif,rc contention of the respondent/defendant in I.A.No.1060 of 2024 that the respondent/defendant is the owner of plot in Sy.No.2 and the suit plot does not exists in Sy.No.l and howevr:r, the claim of the petitioner/ptaintiff is that he purchased the plot bearing No.310 is in Sy.No.1. The issue involved in the subject suit as per the pleadings of the petitioner/plaintiff and respon<lent/defendant is as to whether the suit plot is existing in Sy.No.l as claimed by the petitioner/plaintiff or in Sy.No.2 as claimerl by the respondent/defendant. For the said purpose, an ,i;re

Advocate commissioner may be appointed to note down the physical features of the suit plot. 8- Petitioner/plaintiff has fired counter opposing the said application contending that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property i.e., plot bearing No.3 r0 in Sy.No.l/aa but not Sy.No. r as craimed by the respondent/defendant. The respondent/defendant is a habituar land grabber and had tried to grab his neighbouring prot arso, beronging to one Smt.Shail aja and he suffered a Decree dated 20.0g.20t2 in o.S.N o.243 of 2009 passed by the learned II Additional Junior civil Judge, Rangareddy District and appeal filed by him vide A.s.No.lg7 of z0t6was also dismissed in the month of March , z)za. The said Decree attained finality

9. In the said Decree dated 20.09.20r.2, it was found that the neighbouring property is also situated at Sy.No. r/aa as per the layout and the same layout is filed in this case. Respondent has even admitted that he had sord the subject property in o.s.N o.243 of 2009 and as such it is amusing that the respondent despite himself I t i t: ; t s E{ I \ \

executing the sale deed in favour of the petitioner's predecessors and thereafter plotting was done and layout was also obtained and the respondent had also suffered a Court decree in an earlier case and the respondent claims that he is unaware as to the survey numbersr of the properties he has sold, which is untenable in law.

10. The relief sought by the respondent is contrary to Order XXVI tlule 9 of C.P.C. and also the principle laid down by the Apex C,rurt and this Court. Vide the impugned docket order dated 10.11.2(125, learned trial Court held that no doubt an Advocate Commis'sioner cannot determine the survey number, rather he alone will not be able to locate the suit schedule property as we[l. But, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, where the dispute is only with regard to survey number of suit plot, it is felt just that an Advocai:e Commissioner be appointed who shall take the assistance of Mandal Surveyor for execution of commission work. With the said observations, learned trial Court appointed Mr. G.Chiranjeevi, Advocar:e as an Advocate Commissioner to get survey of the suit plot with the help of Mandal Surveyor and file report before the \

learned trial Court with regard to the survey number in which the suit plot is located. challenging the said order, petitioner filed the present revision. I l. Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.C. deals with Commissions to make local investigations that in any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court, provided that, where the State Government has made rules as to the persons to whom such commission shall be issued, the Court shall be bound by such rules.

12. As discussed supra, it is the petitioner/plaintiffl who filed the aforesaid suit seeking declaration and injunction. Burden lies on the petitioner/plaintiff to prove his claim in the said suit. Respondent/defendant can't take burden on him to prove that the suit schedule property is not in Sy.No.Ilaa and it is in Sy.No.2, \ \ L I I i *i I Ii ,tI t I I

I T f situate,l at Gulam Ali Guda Village, Medipally Gram Panchayat, Ghatkr:sar Mandal, Rangareddy District. Though learned trial Court observed that an Advocate Commissioner can't determine the survey number, it has appointed an Advocate Commissioner to get the sul'vey number of the suit plot and determine whether the suit plot is in which survey number. Therefore, the impugned order is beyonrl the scope of Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.C. and it amounts to col.ection of evidence. Without considering the said aspects, learnerl trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner. It is erronef,us and in violation of the principle laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in catena of Judgments. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and it is accordingtry, set aside

13. in the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Civil Revision Petition is allorved setting aside the impugned Docket Order, dated 10.11 :2025 in t.A.No.l060 of 2024 in O.S.No.2202 of 2022 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-V Additicnal Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Medchal L;

To, Malkajgiri District, Uppal at L.B.Nagar. Consequently, I.A.No. 1060 of 2024 in O.S.No .2202 of 2022 is dismissed. Further learned trial Court shall decide O.S.No.2202 of 2022 and also the Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX, Rules I and 2 of C.P.C., strictly in accordance with law. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The lst Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Vth First Class, Uppal at L. B. Nagar

2. One CC to Sri K llohan, Advocate IOPUC] Judicial Magistrate of

3. One CC to Sri M Damodar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD Copies e GS/Sa

l-l HIGH COIJRT ATED: 1310212026 CRP.No.f i'7 ot 2 26 CRP IS ISPOSING OF t THE S 1 1 rl tfl 2ft76 z Dr. o E * I il l I